Pretty much what Nobby has commented on here in some of the threads that ask about the importance of 20 mile runs ...
That a focus on long runs that beat up the body may be counterproductive. The article talks about how wannabe's aerobic strength may have exceeded her leg strength given her relatively short time as a runner, and so even with some injuries she was able to achieve her progression from 3:40 to 3:20 to 3:11 without multiple 20 mile runs, as many marathon training programs call for.

The process is the goal.

Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.

Pretty much what Nobby has commented on here in some of the threads that ask about the importance of 20 mile runs ... That a focus on long runs that beat up the body may be counterproductive. The article talks about how wannabe's aerobic strength may have exceeded her leg strength given her relatively short time as a runner, and so even with some injuries she was able to achieve her progression from 3:40 to 3:20 to 3:11 without multiple 20 mile runs, as many marathon training programs call for.

I haven't even seen the whole article yet--only Lorraine read the draft for me over the phone.

This is a topic we seem to go over every other week. Someone (like Lex!!) who's using our Master Run Coach program would contact us with a worrisome question; "Is 2:30 run enough for a marathon...???" We have gone over this many times and we have disect our program inside and out and feel quite confident that, to run a good marathon, there's no fault with our program. Now, it sort of depends on how you define "a good marathon". When you get down to as slow as, say, 6 or 7 hours, though it is still a very sound program for them as well, there might be a better way to prepare. Bottom line; would they really need "speed training"? Would their tempo run, or, in our term, Out-and-Back that different from their regular long run??? If you are purely shooting for a survival marathon, something like Galloway's program might be "easier". Of course, it dpends on how you define "easier" as well. I personally believe there is a place for run-walk program. It is probably the best, the easiest and the most effective program to squeeze someone who's not quite ready to go 26-miles to go 26-miles. Let's face it; if you are doing 7-hour marathon, that's 16-minute-mile pace. How much of that really is walking? There's nothingn wrong with walking up the hill in the ultra race; in fact, it's probably even more effective in a long run. I'm not sure if Jeff still has hill phase and interval phase as he used to; but you probably don't need to do those to run 16-minute miles. And some folks seem to really love spending hours on end doing their long run on weekend...or whenever. So that's probably "easier". However, if you look at it microscopically, the damage is probably heck of a lot more, pounding hours and hours on road. That's probably why some of them need 2 or 3 or 4 days recovery after their long run.

I'm not against it; hey, if you just like to say you've "completed a marathon", why not? That seems to be a huge feather in the hat for many people nowadays. But feel that there's a better way to prepare for it; you may want to build a house before you work on your furnature. In distance running, running speed means the ability to use oxygen which, in turn, is your cardio-respiratory fitness. So, within reason, the more fit your are, the faster you can run (the distance). The slower you are, the less "fit" you are. BUT, even not-so-favorablly fit person CAN go the distance with plenty of breaks in between. But, to us, it's kind of like a masking effect. In his 1970 writing, Arthur Lydiard said that you shouldn't even consider including "interval (anaerobic)" training until you can run 8-minute-miles. I'll actually give a wee bit lee-way but maybe 9-minute-miles... It takes approximately 9-minute-mile pace to achieve 4-hour marathon. That probably means you'd need to be able to run 8:30 for about an hour or so. For that, you probably want to be able to run ONE mile in about 7:30 or so. With that, you can probably safely run 10-minute-pace for your long run and that would give you 15-miles for 2:30 run, 18 for 3-hour run. That, I think, would be more then plenty to prepare for a marathon.

Lydiard had 20 "beginners" in 1960, the youngest being 50-years-old, the oldest 74. None of them could run 200m without "blowing up". Eight months later, 8 of them ran a full marathon in....around 4-hours. The way I see it is that it can be done IF done correctly. No GU, no Garmin, no electrolyte, no FiveFingers, no dri-fit... Of course, I'd have to admit, back then, there weren't too many people around 5-hours running a marathon. If this concept is actually effective for, say, people running a marathon in 5 or 6 hours or not is still yet to be tested. However, I think I've posted this somewhere (I think...) but I got to meet this guy in Japan; he's a college professor/coach. And he published a book not too long ago titled; "If you can run 1 hour (continuously), you can complete a marathon" and its subtitle is; "95% success rate"... I'm actually sort of curious, and excited, to see if this would make a "new trend", perhaps a safer and more effective approach. We shall see...

I haven't even seen the whole article yet--only Lorraine read the draft for me over the phone.

This is a topic we seem to go over every other week. Someone (like Lex!!) who's using our Master Run Coach program would contact us with a worrisome question; "Is 2:30 run enough for a marathon...???" We have gone over this many times and we have disect our program inside and out and feel quite confident that, to run a good marathon, there's no fault with our program.

So what is the longest LR you recommend? Is it 2 1/2 hours? This is what my coach has said, and it makes me nervous since I have always done the traditional 3 hour slog to get to 20-22 miles. He has me running more threshold pace miles on the LR's but fewer LR miles overall. At a 7:30-7:45 pace overall on these runs, I am never going to hit beyond 18 to 20 miles on a LR if I am limited to 2:30. With temps in the mid 80's and humidity over 90% in these early morning runs, holding those threshold paces has been challenging. I am nervous about a late race fade. Are you saying a faster pace but limited duration (2:30) LR is better prep than the 3 hour slog?

Are you saying a faster pace but limited duration (2:30) LR is better prep than the 3 hour slog?

Answering for Nobby: Yes (and it doesn't necessarily have to be faster pace.)

In my opinion, for the runner who is looking to race a marathon, it is counterproductive to do long runs so long that they end up feeling like slogs. This might happen by accident or unfamiliarity with your body's limits (or simply a bad day), but it's senseless to plan it. After all, the only training that is effective is the training that you can absorb. If you are going so long that you are broken down in terms of form, energy, and mental focus, what exactly are you training?

.........With temps in the mid 80's and humidity over 90% in these early morning runs, holding those threshold paces has been challenging. I am nervous about a late race fade. Are you saying a faster pace but limited duration (2:30) LR is better prep than the 3 hour slog?

Think threshold effort vs hitting a pace. If your threshold effort is 7:00 min pace on a 50 degree day, it is different on an 85 degree humid day. It is also different if you are a bit run down. Something to think about. Also, think about faster finish long runs at marathon pace/effort. I will let Nobby answer long run question but a lot depends on your total mileage per week as to length of long run and also goals.

I think it is just fine to add quality to a long run for marathon training or any race distance. Then one other day per week in a mid week longer run also add some quality to give two solid quality days per week. Awesome plan for marathon training. OR, run comfortable for long run and then mix in some quality two other days per week. It can also vary week to week. Mix it up.

Are you saying a faster pace but limited duration (2:30) LR is better prep than the 3 hour slog?

Answering for Nobby: Yes (and it doesn't necessarily have to be faster pace.)

Jeff:

I'm actually impressed how well your one line answered on my behalf and more! Beautifully said.

Heelgrad:

I took a glance at your log and, all due respect, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think your training is very effective particularly if marathon (sub-3?) is your goal. I can see you are a decent runner with 5k PR of 17:37 and your training reflects that. According to our VO2Max driven performance predictor, and you can check with any other available calculator, be it McMillan's or Daniels, your marathon time, based on your 5k PR, should be way below 3-hours. Ours says 2:48. If your target is sub-3 marathon, which is roughly 6:50 per mile pace, I'm not sure what 5:45 pace interval or 3~4 mile long of tempo run at 6:20 pace would do for you. In other words, IF your target is to crack 3 hours for a marathon, what you're doing really don't show much of race-specificity EXCEPT for perhaps trying to do your long run as close to the marathon distance (well, not quite...) as close to marathon pace (well, not quite...) as possible??? It seems to me so many people are trying to do that; trying to do close to a marathon disatnce, 20 to 22 miles, as close to a marathon pace--well, slower folks seem to have not much difference between marathon race pace and long run training pace and that makes the situation even worse.

To me, you're trying to do your long run way too fast; if 3-hour is your target, I'll hang around closer to 8-minute pace; and your tempo run way too short and way too fast. To me, training is to work on different elements and on the race day put them all together. You work on distance but not quite as far and certainly don't need to be as fast; but you want to work also on very close to the actual marathon pace continuously but not as long but not too short either; for a marathon, I'd say 1:00 to 1:30 would be a good target. So, for you, 10~12 miles at 7-minute pace. I'm sorry, but it seems none of your training reflects that.

Of course, whatever turns you on. If you get a kick out of tough fast short workout, that's your call. If you want to slog along a super long run, that's your call. If you want to do all your long run close to a marathon pace, that's your call. If you insists singles is just as good or even more effective than doubles, that's your call too. ;o) But you've got to realize there's a difference between a hard workout and a right workout. I don't know just exactly what kind of intervals you do; but doing intervals at 5:45 pace or even faster would be pretty tough and you may get a kick out of it. And that probably works for you to get your 5k time down to 17-minutes. But Ii don't think that kind of workout is really helping you to get to your supposedly your marathon potential of 2:48. Just my observation.

Thanks for the reply Nobby. I think my 17:37 5k is not really where I am at the moment, though with this heat that's hard to assess. I have always been more competitive at the shorter distances. On a cool day my guess is I can hit 18:30-18:45 right now. So my basic goal is a 3:15 marathon, with some thought that I may be able to pull off a 3:10 if everything goes well. At 43, with the Chicago Marathon on Oct 9th, this will get me back to Boston at ten or more minutes under the new qualifying time for the 2013 Boston when I will be 45.
So if I am interpreting this correctly, you are saying more MP medium LR's, and slow down the LR?

Thanks for the reply Nobby. I think my 17:37 5k is not really where I am at the moment, though with this heat that's hard to assess. I have always been more competitive at the shorter distances. On a cool day my guess is I can hit 18:30-18:45 right now. So my basic goal is a 3:15 marathon, with some thought that I may be able to pull off a 3:10 if everything goes well. At 43, with the Chicago Marathon on Oct 9th, this will get me back to Boston at ten or more minutes under the new qualifying time for the 2013 Boston when I will be 45. So if I am interpreting this correctly, you are saying more MP medium LR's, and slow down the LR?

Suppose you are trying to run, say, 5-minute for the mile; that's 1:15 for each quarter, or approximately 19 seconds per 100m. You can try to run 400m in 57 seconds till the sun sets--and even some professional athletes seem to think this way too; that, if you can run that much faster, running a 1:15 quarter would feel so much easier...--but it still won't be "event specific" training. Or what do you think a workout like 5 X 100m in 14 seconds would accomplish for your attempt to crack 5 minutes?

I know 2 guys who had run 2:06 for the marathon (I know more elite women than men). 3-minute per kilometer would get you 2:06 for the marathon. One guy, his training would start out with some km intervals at 3-minute pace (MP) to get use to MP first with breaks. Then he would move on to the tempo runs of 10-miles or so (16km) at 3-minute/km pace. This approach makes sense to me. The other guy, who also happened to be a 27:35-10k guy, would do 5 X 1km in about 2:48, a bit faster but less in number but that's still slower than his 10k pace. This is to make 3-minute-km pace feel easy. Then he would do 20k tempo run at, guess what, 3-minute pace. His long run is about 2-hours....at 8-minute-per-mile pace. I don't know why so many people want to make marathon training so complicated; no LT run or no cruise interval or anything. You wanna run 2:06, that's 3-minute-km pace; you get used to that pace, you put them all together in string, all the while you still spend some decent amount of time on your feet at easy pace.... Only in the race, you put them all together. There's no need to put them all together at any other time--yet, so many try to do very close to that every weekend.

Yes, I think a tempo-ish run close to your target marathon pace for at least an hour, probably preferably 90-minutes, would do you good. And, with such a workout, why push your long run as well? Yes, if I were you, I'd slow down the long run pace to more like at least 8-mninute, if not even more (8:30, even). I think you ARE doing a 17-minute 5k training program. But if speed is your strength, why not try to get it down to 16-minute? But if you WANT to run a decent marathon, well, more of a reason to do more "event specific" workouts. Sometimes doing what you like to do or what you're good at in training may not get you what you want to achieve in the race. Again, my opinion...

mta: finally picked up the mag. Great article. Way to go Wannabe and Nobby!!

I went to pick up a copy at the local running store...they said some guy came in and bought every copy they had because he "knew somebody" in it; so I went to another one...same story...and another SAME story. Either someone local is featured as well or Wannebe has a stalker in Indy!

Well, I guess Nobby could have the stalker, but I'm guessing it's Wannabe.

I went to pick up a copy at the local running store...they said some guy came in and bought every copy they had because he "knew somebody" in it; so I went to another one...same story...and another SAME story. Either someone local is featured as well or Wannebe has a stalker in Indy!

Well, I guess Nobby could have the stalker, but I'm guessing it's Wannabe.

I can send you my copy if you like.

"It does not matter how slow you go so long as you do not stop."Wisdom of Confucius

Something that the article doesn't say that I think is a notable point is that I not only finished the races, I finished feeling strong. I don't say this to brag at all, so please don't take it that way. Both in New York and Boston I was able to pick up the pace in the end. My final 5Ks were my fastest. The limited long runs didn't limit my endurance at the finish. Several people have asked me about this.
Maybe I should go get an extra copy before they are all gone! I am not aware of any stalkers! I knd of doubt that! My own parents haven't bought a copy or read the whole article!

Something that the article doesn't say that I think is a notable point is that I not only finished the races, I finished feeling strong. I don't say this to brag at all, so please don't take it that way. Both in New York and Boston I was able to pick up the pace in the end. My final 5Ks were my fastest. The limited long runs didn't limit my endurance at the finish. Several people have asked me about this. Maybe I should go get an extra copy before they are all gone! I am not aware of any stalkers! I knd of doubt that! My own parents haven't bought a copy or read the whole article!

I think it is also important to note that Kristen is super human speedy. She's got the gift.

I will also add that she is an amazing chef. Did I mention gracious as well?